Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 
  

You are guilty of ignoring some of the information I posted. Specifically, Post #78 in this topic string. 
  

I did not ignore it.  I actually agree with some of it. But a lot of the times your opinion is not backed up with documented proof.  Opinions don't count in reloading.  I don't trust anyone's opinions when it comes to reloading.   I choose to test the data I get from the noted and accepted authors of the reloading manuals. 
  

That was not my opinion... instead, it was quoted information.
  

"This is what you will find if you do some investigating”

IMR 4198 is generally considered not position sensitive for most rifle cartridges, including common straight-walled black powder cartridges like the .45-70, .40-70 Ballard, and .40-90 Ballard. This means that, within normal loading density and pressure limits, you don’t need to worry about the exact placement of the powder in the case for consistent ignition and performance.

Why it’s not position sensitive

• Burn rate and formulation: IMR 4198 is a fast-burning extruded rifle powder designed for consistent combustion when loaded within its published pressure range.
• Experience in older cartridges: Reloaders using it in .45-70 and similar straight-walled cartridges have reported no issues with vertical stringing or erratic ignition when powder placement varies."

OK, provide the source of this data.  I have provided all my sources.  Even if you do, I will still use fillers when I think they are needed.  None of this says anything about the Topic of reloading the 40 EX.  I thought you were going to agree to disagree.  

Chuck said

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 
  

You are guilty of ignoring some of the information I posted. Specifically, Post #78 in this topic string. 
  

I did not ignore it.  I actually agree with some of it. But a lot of the times your opinion is not backed up with documented proof.  Opinions don't count in reloading.  I don't trust anyone's opinions when it comes to reloading.   I choose to test the data I get from the noted and accepted authors of the reloading manuals. 
  

That was not my opinion... instead, it was quoted information.

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 
  

You are guilty of ignoring some of the information I posted. Specifically, Post #78 in this topic string. 
  

I did not ignore it.  I actually agree with some of it. But a lot of the times your opinion is not backed up with documented proof.  Opinions don't count in reloading.  I don't trust anyone's opinions when it comes to reloading.   I choose to test the data I get from the noted and accepted authors of the reloading manuals. 

Chuck said

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 
  

You are guilty of ignoring some of the information I posted. Specifically, Post #78 in this topic string. 

Chuck said

Bert H. said
Chuck,
What I am telling you (and you apparently are refusing to accept or understand) is that I choose to believe what the Powder manufacturer (Dupont in this case) has clearly stated concerning their product.  They alone have the legal liability to insure that their products (and the instructions for use) are clearly delineated.   Clyde (Snooky) Williams (and other similar authors) were not the gun powder manufacturer, nor are they directly legally responsible if somebody misused Dupont's gun powder. So Yes, he is one of the "gun cranks" that I am referring to.
Dupont clearly stated not to pack or use a filler with their smokeless powders designed to replace black powder, yet you intentionally choose to take the erroneous (bad) advice/recommendation from someone not directly associated with the manufacture of the actual product... why ?  Do you honestly believe that Dupont is unqualified to tell people not to use fillers or packing?
Bert
  

You are doing the exact same thing.  Refusing to admit what the Modern Experts have said. What ever Dupont said 100 years ago for a powder that hasn't been around for over 100 years most likely was what they believed or could have been said for liability reasons.  Neither of us has any proof.
I will follow the experts.  But, I will start low and work up.  I will use fillers when there is a large void to fill.  Flash over is real and has blown up rifles.  As powders were improved and replaced they have become more efficient and will produce more pressure based upon my chronograph data.  I've just learned a lesson about compressing a load and won't do it again.  Not sure when I'll shoot again.  Hopefully on Tuesday if I can get all the projects done around the house to be gone for a couple weeks.   
  

I asked Grok ( an unbiased expert?) who was right and below is his response. Don’t shoot the messenger - pun intended!

Why Bert’s position holds up best:

•  Manufacturer guidance is the safest baseline. Hodgdon/IMR (who now handle the IMR line) and historical DuPont data have long treated IMR 4198 as a relatively non-position-sensitive powder. It’s specifically praised for black-powder cartridge use precisely because it performs consistently without needing fillers when you follow the “40% rule” (roughly 40% of the original black-powder charge by weight). Current Hodgdon data for cartridges like the .45-70, .38-55, or similar doesn’t call for fillers with 4198, and many experienced reloaders on Winchester-specific forums echo this: they load 4198 successfully with no filler and good consistency. 

•  Fillers introduce unnecessary variables. Even “safe” light fillers (toilet paper, Dacron, etc.) can sometimes cause issues like inconsistent ignition, minor pressure spikes, or (rarely) chamber ringing in older guns if they shift or compress oddly. Bert’s point about legal liability is spot-on: the powder maker has every incentive to give conservative advice, while secondary sources or individual “modern experts” (including books like Williamson’s) don’t carry the same accountability.

•  Flash-over risk is real but overstated for 4198. True secondary explosive effect (SEE) or dangerous flash-over is more commonly associated with certain slower powders in very low-density loads, not with a fast-burning powder like 4198 when charges are kept in the recommended reduced range. Many long-time reloaders (including several on the same site) report decades of trouble-free use of 4198 without fillers, especially in straight-wall cases.

Bert’s conservative, manufacturer-first approach is the one that minimizes risk — especially valuable when shooting collectible Winchester lever guns or single-shots that you don’t want to damage.

Bert H. is on the safer, more conservative side — and in the reloading community (especially among collectors of vintage Winchester lever guns and single-shots), his position aligns with the stronger consensus.

Bottom line for safety: Stick with published data from Hodgdon/IMR or reputable manuals.

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 

Bert H. said
Chuck,
What I am telling you (and you apparently are refusing to accept or understand) is that I choose to believe what the Powder manufacturer (Dupont in this case) has clearly stated concerning their product.  They alone have the legal liability to insure that their products (and the instructions for use) are clearly delineated.   Clyde (Snooky) Williams (and other similar authors) were not the gun powder manufacturer, nor are they directly legally responsible if somebody misused Dupont's gun powder. So Yes, he is one of the "gun cranks" that I am referring to.
Dupont clearly stated not to pack or use a filler with their smokeless powders designed to replace black powder, yet you intentionally choose to take the erroneous (bad) advice/recommendation from someone not directly associated with the manufacture of the actual product... why ?  Do you honestly believe that Dupont is unqualified to tell people not to use fillers or packing?
Bert
  

You are doing the exact same thing.  Refusing to admit what the Modern Experts have said. What ever Dupont said 100 years ago for a powder that hasn't been around for over 100 years most likely was what they believed or could have been said for liability reasons.  Neither of us has any proof.

I will follow the experts.  But, I will start low and work up.  I will use fillers when there is a large void to fill.  Flash over is real and has blown up rifles.  As powders were improved and replaced they have become more efficient and will produce more pressure based upon my chronograph data.  I've just learned a lesson about compressing a load and won't do it again.  Not sure when I'll shoot again.  Hopefully on Tuesday if I can get all the projects done around the house to be gone for a couple weeks.   

What I am telling you (and you apparently are refusing to accept or understand) is that I choose to believe what the Powder manufacturer (Dupont in this case) has clearly stated concerning their product.  They alone have the legal liability to insure that their products (and the instructions for use) are clearly delineated.   Clyde (Snooky) Williams (and other similar authors) were not the gun powder manufacturer, nor are they directly legally responsible if somebody misused Dupont's gun powder. So Yes, he is one of the "gun cranks" that I am referring to.

Dupont clearly stated not to pack or use a filler with their smokeless powders designed to replace black powder, yet you intentionally choose to take the erroneous (bad) advice/recommendation from someone not directly associated with the manufacture of the actual product... why ?  Do you honestly believe that Dupont is unqualified to tell people not to use fillers or packing?

Bert

Here is a page from The Winchester Lever Legacy by Clyde " Snooky" Williamson.  I've posted this for you before.  This is not the only Author that I have posted.

Final comment for you to consider... Dupont (manufacturer) clearly stated not to use a filler for the original smokeless powders used to load black powder cartridges, and when they improved their formulas and introduced new powders in later years, at no time did they publish a recommendation to use fillers. 

IMR 4198 today (manufactured in Canada) is specifically formulated to be neither position or temperature sensitive (which is why it is a very consistent and versatile powder for its intended cartridges). 

In my (not so humble) opinion, you are making a mistake by not reading and adhering to what the powder manufacturer's recommendations are for their product.  Why do you insist on taking the contrary advice of some "gun crank" that wrote an article or book?  None of my older or newer reloading manuals advocate using fillers with IMR 4198, and Dupont certainly did no advocate it either... quite the opposite in fact.

Bert

I took the time to look at the 1907 Catalog.  I think I've narrowed down the next progression trying to get to the 4198.

We started with the No 1 powder and the 40% rule of thumb that was based upon this powder.  Now in 1907 Dupont was using Sharpshooter for the black powder calibers.  I don't have a lot of catalogs between 1907 and the 1930's that are not Winchester related.  I'll take a look when I can.

We leave next Thursday but I have a lot to do around the house before we go out of the country for a couple weeks. 

The key to an accurate cast bullet is a perfectly formed base: no voids, rounded corners or fins. In this case the fit of the moveable plug would need to be nearly perfect, the alignment pins and mould faces nearly perfect as well. It would also have survived decades of use and possible abuse. Yep, it would be pretty cool to see this mould. I enjoy casting with the Winchester moulds in my modest collection but I haven't had much luck finding one that hadn't been used hard or abused...but they're still pretty cool! I think you'd enjoy casting, Chuck. 

Mike